Loading...
2007, 07-23 Special Joint Council/BOCC Meeting MinutesAttendance. City of Spokane Valley Mayor Diana Wilhite Deputy Mayor Steve Taylor Councilmember Dick Denenny Councilmember Mike DeVleming Councilmember Bill Gothmann Councilmember Rich Munson Councilmember Gary Schimmels City Manager Dave Mercier City Attorney Mike Connelly Deputy City Manager Nina Regor Deputy City Attorney Cary Driskell Planning Manager Greg McCormick Finance Director Ken Thompson Public Works Director Neil Kersten Senior Engineer Steve Worley Administrative Analyst Morgan Koudelka Senior Planner Scott Kuhta City Clerk Chris Bainbridge Others in Attendance included: Rep Timm Ormsby Jim Huttenmaier Planning Commissioner Gail Kogle Craig Howard, Valley News Herald MINUTES Joint City Council/ Spokane County Commission Meeting Monday, July 23, 2007 2:00 p.m. Spokane Valley City Council Chambers 11707 E Sprague Avenue Spokane County Commissioner Todd Mielke Commissioner Bonnie Mager [arrived 2:20] Commissioner Mark Richard (absent) Jim Emacio, DPA Prosecutor's Office Dave Hubert, DPA Prosecutor's Office Bob Brueggeman, County Engineer Gerry Gemmill, Assistant to Chief Exe. Officer John Pederson, Assistant Dir. Bldg & Planning Bruce Rawls, Utilities Director Nancy Hill, SCRAPS Director Mayor Wilhite opened the meeting at 2:14 p.m., and announced that Commissioner Richard will not be able to attend today's meeting. 1. Joint Planning Agreement Mayor Wilhite brought attention to the July 12, 2007 draft interlocal joint planning agreement between Spokane County and the City of Spokane Valley. Commissioner Mielke explained that the GMA Steering Committee has also examined this draft, and with the help of legal counsel, has worked to clean up the references; and he mentioned that this "redline" version is different from what the Steering Committee reviewed as some of the previous references were too broad, such as making reference to "anywhere within the UGA" as opposed to in the "joint planning area." Attorney Emacio then highlighted the proposed changes. Mr. Emacio explained that the rationale for the change on page 4 under "projects affected" was it was felt it should be a two -way agreement within jurisdictions [Commissioner Mager arrived]; he said that page 5 Special Joint Council /County Meeting: 07 -23 -07 Page 1 of 6 Approved by Council: 08 -14 -07 provides that either party could require the preparation of a transportation impact analysis for a project which was developed in either area; that the word "shall" was changed to "may" and the "concept impact analysis" was changed to "transportation impact study." Mr. Emacio also explained that section 5 identifies the terminology, as the County said when a project is developed, it may not require a complicated traffic impact analysis, but could require something less like a traffic count or study; so the word "study" encompasses the various types of traffic analysis, and is more broad than the word "analysis." Mr. Brueggeman added that they usually met with a proponent on scoping to get a sense of what the project would entail and the facilities it might affect; and then make that determination at the scoping meeting of what would be necessary. He further explained that the Board's intent was to have this as a template and have the specific name of the joint planning area filled in later. Mr. Emacio also stated that this template is not final; that they sent it to the City of Spokane and expect they'll have some suggestions; after which the document can be brought back here for further review. Other possible changes, he said, are that they can request the study rather than require it; and to leave the jurisdiction where the project will be, to have the last call on whether to conduct the study. Although every area is within the County, Commissioner Mielke said that the County would have input regarding scope, but the City would have the ultimate say in doing the study. Some discussion ensued regarding possible conflicts if one entity feels a study should be done and the other party disagrees, thus defeating the purpose of the agreement; and that designated representatives are explained in section 15. Mr. Emacio also pointed to paragraph 5, and said that section 1.30 of the County Road and Drainage Standards contain specific criteria about what it takes to mitigate issues and address concurrency; that now there is no official requirement to try to work out these differences; but this template says that entitles must meet. Councilmember Munson remarked that there is still a concern if the County is doing development in a joint area and a disagreement ensues including long involved mitigation, that if "triggers" were already in place that mechanism could save time. Deputy Mayor Taylor added that definitions of what a developer should do regarding road improvements to accommodate the developments, are different from the standard; and there are some Supreme Court rulings that discuss what kind of improvements a developer must do for new impact purposes. Mayor Wilhite mentioned that this is the first step in this process; and Mr. Emacio replied that what he explained above are the big changes, and the remainder changes were to clean it up to make it read better. Commissioner Mielke said that on page 7, immediately above "Development Standards" that section 3 also added a clause about the SRTC's concurrency regulations once finalized; and that the Board has not yet seen those regulations and will address them once they have had a chance to review them. Other discussion turned to concurrency regulations and the SRTC's authority to have them; that the SRTC is a required planning entity; and that if the law requires concurrency, even the SRTC would fall under certain statutory concurrency regulations; and if currency is not met, Mr. Mielke said they have the ability to shut down the project. The Court under LUPA were also mentioned and what could be an appropriate hearing body; and it was pointed out that section 22 includes "Venue Stipulation." Other issues included mention by Attorney Connelly that replacing the UGA with joint planning agreements throughout the document works well as long as all the adjacent UGA's are joint planning areas; and that might not necessarily be the case. Mr. Connelly also mentioned that under the section 2 "intent" section, the original document included that standards had to be "consistent" with City development standards, and that now the word is changed to "compatible" which is a softer word and less strictly interpreted. Mr. Mielke said that he would not tell someone in an unincorporated area that they have to comply with City ordinances; that for him the common ground is to find a way to work through the process and to find the consistent standards in the UGA; that he is willing to work to move forward with common road standards. Mr. Connelly said some of the changes to be aware of include the deleted language on page 3; that section 5 Transportation went from requiring to requesting; that the TIS analysis Special Joint Council /County Meeting: 07 -23 -07 Page 2 of 6 Approved by Council: 08 -14 -07 is good but there is nothing requiring scoping or a transportation study; and that section "d" had wording taken out that would require the authorizing jurisdiction to recommend denial of a project that failed to meet concurrency; and that the top of page 7 uses language that addresses the parties agreeing to jointly identify proposals that fail to comply with concurrency standards. Mr. Emacio said the Board suggested that as they didn't want to forego authority over a project. Mr. Connelly responded that the less certain the language means the less certainty you'll have for planning purposes; if a document doesn't allow one jurisdiction to develop in a way to meet adjacent jurisdiction concurrency; at what level do respective bodies want to negotiate to. Mr. Mielke countered that a change in the language doesn't change the ultimate result, that the parties further agree to "jointly" identify and recommend denial of proposals that fail to comply; and that the County is still looking at projects on a joint basis and if there is a failure to meet concurrency, and those failures are identified, that will be a set up for denial in the future until such concurrency is met; as the GMA says if there is a failure of concurrency, the project is stopped. Attorney Connelly said the result could be the same; and the reason for the agreement is to try not to have to use the courts. Attorney Emacio said that identifying is better than recommending denial; and Mr. Mielke added that once that is identified due to failure to meet concurrency, State law takes over, adding that having "triggers" would be a good idea. It was mentioned that should be considered, but not to the point of staling the process; and that the process and the changes can be done concurrently. Mayor Wilhite said she sees no reason why we shouldn't move forward on both. Mr. Connelly said he would not recommend adding the paragraph about the SRTC until the SRTC decided what they would do about concurrency; that the mediation paragraph needs to be more specific to include mediation as to any determination made pursuant to this agreement and not the "terms of this agreement;" and if there is an argument about a determination, then the terms needs to be different and the language broadened; adding that he will give his written comments to Mr. Emacio for further consideration. Further brief discussion mentioned having level of service as at trigger; having some kind of standardized method instead of negotiation within each project type; having a regional approach to determine whatever impacts the County development would have on the Valley; impact fees whether local or regional and how they might be processed (SRTC with a regional fee and /or have each jurisdiction adopt their own); how to impose the City's standards in areas outside the City's jurisdiction; that this draft document can always be amended later; and that this agreement is a good starting place. Mayor Wilhite mentioned that this issue can be brought up again at the next joint City /County meeting. 2. Potential Regional Ballot Issues Mayor Wilhite mentioned the "Ballot and Potential Ballot Issues" handout; and said these dates are tentative; and that Spokane Valley does not anticipate adding anything to the November ballot; and asked if anyone is aware of any other potential ballot issues for 2007. Commissioner Mielke said that August 14 is the last day to submit anything for the fall 2007 ballot; and mentioned that Crime Check is listed under the City of Spokane; he mentioned the 1 /10` of 1% sales tax levy; and said that the 911 Board anticipated their revenue stream will go red in 2011; that they seek a long term solution and have discussed the possibility of some 911 and crime check combination; and said that there is a consideration of having as a ballot issue, the 1 /10 of 1% sales tax; which would amount to 60% of the revenues going to the County, and the remaining 40% being split among the jurisdictions. Mr. Mercier also mentioned that Representative Timm Ormsby is also in attendance today and may be of assistance in answering questions. Mayor Wilhite said that the City plans a six -year budget; and said that we have a street fund for maintenance purposes; that Council would like to know how to supplement that fund, and that the 1 /10` of 1% might be considered provided the City could use it for road maintenance purposes. Special Joint Council /County Meeting: 07 -23 -07 Page 3 of 6 Approved by Council: 08 -14 -07 Commissioner Mielke responded that they could consider using those funds if they were labeled for strategic infrastructure and roads; but that respective road funds cannot be used outside one's jurisdiction. Councilmember Munson mentioned that our master road plan estimates the need for an annual five million dollars to maintain our roads. Commissioner Mielke said that the County is trying to identify needs and desires, and that it typically takes about six months to see the revenue once a measure is enacted. Discussion of that issue ensued including mention that the City's road are critical; that the City's $4.6 million per year challenge won't be met by that 1 /10` of 1 %; the possibility of having a vehicle registration within the City's zip codes would generate an estimated $70,000 (a $20.00 license tab fee); and how to sell this idea to the voters when the City's has its own plan to sell the City Center. If the County wanted the City's endorsement or support of this issue, the tight time schedule was also mentioned and the realization that the Councilmembers might not be ready to make such a decision. Other pending ballot issues included the need for a jail; other types of revenue sources such as utility tax and /or B &O tax; the inoperability of the current 911 communication system; the need to prioritize issues and that Council agreed public safety and infrastructure are top priorities. Mayor Wilhite said that perhaps this issue of supporting the 1 /10` of 1% can be added to Council's Tuesday agenda; and that Mayor Wilhite will report such outcome back to the Board of County Commissioners. 3. WASTEWATER Treatment Facility Governance Commissioner Mielke stated that the County has drafted a "Sewer System Governance Principles" list and he asked Mr. Rawls to join in the discussion. Mr. Mielke emphasized that this is a draft document and is a result of a compilation of notes taken over the last few years as he has talked to different people about this subject; and if there are any questions regarding where we are in the process with the facility, he asked that those questions be addressed to Mr. Rawls. Mr. Rawls explained that they are about to issue the Request For Proposals; that they met with some design firms a few weeks ago; and are working through those comments, some of which are large and some minor; that the RFP will be issued about mid - August with a December date to submit proposals; that there will likely be site visits in January, and it is hoped to have a contract in place by July 2008; and that this all assumes the "Total Maximum Daily Load " (TMDL) goes forward and gets submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); that the operations might be approved beginning 2008 if there are no appeals, with project construction beginning about July 2008; that it would be ready for testing in the fall of 2011, with start-up around January 2012. Mr. Rawls also said that they received a conditional use permit, and there is nothing in there to cause worries; that the appeal period is about to end; and they are waiting to see if there are any surprises in the draft TMDL; that regarding the NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) or TMDL permit; there could be an opportunity for legal challenge or appeal; that there are a number of options; and as we get closer we will have better vision. Further discussion included meetings with all associated jurisdictions for a regional approach; the problems of limited capacity; associated funding issues such as utility tax; other jurisdictions such as Liberty Lake and Airway Heights and their wastewater issues; mention that the plant must be self - supporting; the question of rates and trying to have the lowest possible rates to consumers but have rates high enough to cover the debt retirement and operational cost. Commissioner Mielke then highlighted the principles in the Draft document. 4. Regional Animal Control SCRAPS (Spokane County Regional Animal Protection Service) Director Nancy Hill explained that a Regional Research Team was recently formed with Morgan Koudelka, City of Spokane Dave Steele, and herself; and that the team has developed a draft regional budget to include staffing and operating costs along with capital expenditures, which include an addition to the facility and start-up costs such as upgraded computers, vehicles, equipment, and uniforms. She explained that they are still working on reaching smaller areas like Spangle, Latah and Deer Park. Ms. Hill said that the original proposal was to Special Joint Council /County Meeting: 07 -23 -07 Page 4 of 6 Approved by Council: 08 -14 -07 increase the spay /neutered license by $5.00 and a non - spayed /.neutered license by $8.00; to increase the daily board rate from $6.00 to $10.00; and add some additional fees such as trip costs. She said that given the current license rates, these new fees could bring about $150,000 in additional revenue, half of which would be credited to the Spokane Valley account. She also mentioned that she is examining jurisdictionalizing the revenue; for example, if Spokane Valley citizens were more responsible in licensing pets, the City would see the value of that. She further explained that they are looking at a new software package to enable them to make sure everyone pays what they should. There was some mention of having a one -time lifetime license which could save money on renewals; but Ms. Hill said many places which do have those don't have the annual income to operate. She also stated that the City of Spokane wants to set their own license fees, but that would be problematic in printing out forms. In response to a question of when this would all begin, Ms. Hill said they can start this new program without hearing from all the smaller cities; but that are waiting to hear from the City of Spokane and she hopes to hear from them this week. Further discussion included not placing a burden on responsible people; grant opportunities for the Humane Society; pet shops, dog breeders, dog trainers, and veterinarians to complete a self - mailer postcard back to SCRAPS to help track unlicensed pets; having an ordinance to enforce licensing; the desire of Council to hear SCRAPS Community Assessment Report; that the next time this comes on the agenda, it will be placed at the front of the agenda, and that perhaps a representative from the area vets association could attend the next meeting. [Deputy Mayor Taylor left the meeting at 4:35 p.m.] 5. Other topics: Regional Support Network Grant Proposal Mayor Wilhite said that the Regional Support Network is pursuing a grant proposal; that $4.00 of the $10.00 auditor's real estate recording document fee collected by Spokane County goes to the State, which makes that $4.00 available for grants; and that Representative Ormsby called her regarding this topic, and she invited him to explain the issue. Representative Ormsby said that as the jurisdictional legislative bodies, the Board and City Council will be asked to approve any plan for the State's portion of the document recording fee. In background, Mr. Ormsby said that 2005 Legislature approved House Bill 2163, which is homeless housing assistance funding; that it accumulates from a $10.00 document recording fee around real estate transactions; that $6.00 of that $10 is returned back to the community; and that there is a local County task force that reviews applications and dispenses the local portion of that money toward local homeless housing programs. Mr. Ormsby said that the State keeps a very small portion of the remaining $4.00 for administrative fees; and the remainder they drive to communities in the form of competitive grants; that Spokane County is the entity charged with writing that grant; that the grant submitted for those dollars in 2006 was not funded; perhaps because the grant was written to support three separate populations: offenders re- entering the population; the chronically mentally ill; and foster children coming out of foster care and into emancipation; and that the State viewed that application as trying to serve a very broad spectrum of the population in a very short time frame (one - year). Mr. Ormsby said that in speaking with the Director of the Regional Support Network (RSN), and with the individuals on the two, 2163 groups, one that writes the application and the other that serves on the dispensing board; and with Mayor Hession and Mayor Wilhite, that one of the things to consider is that the most difficult and unsympathetic population that is a challenge to provide housing for is the ex- offender population; and in housing the ex- offender, it helps law enforcement as law enforcement knows where these people are and therefore diminishes the public safety responsibility. Mr. Ormsby said that his proposal to the RSN and to the task force charged with writing the grant, and to the Board of County Commissioners and City Councilmembers, is to consider writing that grant specific to the offender population; and that he is aware this is not politically popular, but that he seeks the Sheriff's Office support, the Department of Correction support, and the City's police department support as well. Special Joint Council /County Meeting: 07 -23 -07 Page 5 of 6 Approved by Council: 08 -14 -07 Mr. Mielke added that in the ex- offender population, there is overlay with the mentally ill; and suggested rather than just mentioning the "ex- offender" population, that Mr. Ormsby consider adding the mentally ill population as well; to have the two categories together; and he added that approximately 60% of those charged with felonies have mental illness; and that with the mental housing grant, once a person has a conviction, they lose their eligibility for housing assistance making it difficult to place members of this population in stable environments; and therefore making them more at risk for re- offending. Mr. Ormsby said that he has also informed the City of Spokane's Mayor office of this topic; and that this is time sensitive as the grant must be submitted by some time next month. Mayor Wilhite expressed concern about the ending of the grant, and questioned if that means the housing assistance ends after three years and if so, what becomes of those displaced persons. Mr. Ormsby said that housing officials such as SNAP have counseled him on what needs to be done in the grant process and what should be avoided to avoid displacing persons after the grant ends. Mr. Mercier said that he encourages the coordination of this topic with the current state regional funding efforts to assist in homelessness; and that linkage of the two proposals would be useful. Mayor Wilhite said the City has received several grants through the Sheriff's Office regarding special funding, and it would be helpful to know how long those grants are, and how the grant funds are worked into the costs associated with the City's contract with the County, and she asked if the County would sent the City a list of those grants along with the grant's lifespan to assist in the City's financial planning. Mayor Wilhite thanked the Councilmembers, the County Commissioners, and City and County staff for attending; said that she would like to continue having joint meetings possibly monthly or every six weeks; and that the next meeting would be hosted by the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Mielke said that he will leave the scheduling up to Mr. Richard, and said that possibly the next meeting could he scheduled some time after Labor Day. There being no further business, Mayor Wilhite thanked everyone for their participation, and adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m. ATTEST: - Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk 0. W itki& Diana Wilhite, Mayor Special Joint Council /County Meeting: 07 -23 -07 Page 6 of 6 Approved by Council: 08 -14 -07 area. ti July 23, 2007 DRAFT - Sewer System Governance Principles • Terms & length defined and agreed upon within an interlocal agreement. • System is to be self - supporting and not rely upon the general fund of any partner jurisdiction. • Rates will be set so that all operational costs associated with the system are covered, as well as a reasonable reserve for future capital needs. Rates to customers will be set as low as possible, yet still be sufficient to meet the aforementioned goals as well as regulatory compliance. • An advisory committee will be established, consisting of representatives from the partner jurisdictions, and will be charged with overseeing the setting of rates consistent with other conditions as set forth in the interlocal agreement. • Expansion of the system, including the extension of the system. shall be determined on a "business model" basis. LE. Repayment of costs associated with the extension of the system shall be accomplished within a pre- established period of time, whether repayment is via property owner /developer payment, additional subscriber base, and/or grant funding. In this way, the system will be extended in those areas where density supports such an expansion, or where there is financial means to cover the costs. • Generally, all rates will be consistent by category, regardless of whether the service is within or outside of an incorporated area. Example: single family homes will have the same rate regardless of location. However, rates may differ by jurisdiction based upon any conditions imposed on providing service in that • No utility tax will be assessed against the system. Partner jurisdictions. authorized by statute, may impose a utility tax against any parcel receiving sewer service within its jurisdiction, but shall not assess a utility tax outside of its boundaries. Partner jurisdictions to the agreement can determine how such utility taxes are to be billed and collected. • All staff and service needs of the system are to be fulfilled either directly by the system, or through contracting with an outside organization. Services shall not be provided by any partner jurisdiction unless all parties agree in writing. Juh 12, 2007 DRAFT INTLRLO AL AGREEMENT REGARDING JOINT PLANNING BETWEEN SPOKANE COUNTY AND THE CITE OF SPOKANE This Agreement is entered by Spokane County, hereinafter referred to as "Cuu,a and the City, of ,Spokane hereinafter referred ju "City joint!. mimed to along with the founts as the "Parties" Whereas, a Goal of the State Growth Management Act is to ensure coordination between communities and jurisdictions, including _spix al f +ur j ' c districts to reconcile conflicts, and «'he real, RCW 36.70&210 sets forth certain requirements for County- widc;Planning johcies, including that county -wide planning policies shall address policies for joint county and city planning within urban growth areas. and Whereas, The Countywide Manning 2olicics for Spokane County adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.210 contain policies for a joint planning process intended to resolve issues regarding how zoning. subdivision and other land use appmvals in designated joint planning areas will be coordinated. and that such joint planning may be accornplished pursuant to an interlocal agreement cntenYd into between and/or among jurisdictions and/or special purpose districts, and { Pen.ntted: For Times New Deleted: P *h IIt Delete* DRAFT INTE*WCAL AGREEMENT 1 Delebet Deleted mw Debtsd m the day of Min Debited frown Deleted i W etsd: oc W and: coast Deleted: W ave P Deleted: r Deleted: P iel/ .73 - U7 APat Whereas, the Parties are desirous of resolving how zoning, subdivision and other land use approvals in the Moran/Glenne 1 GA/JPA anti adtointng propenv within the City of Spokane. will be coordinated. and Whereas, the Parties wish to separate, without prejudice to either Party, the issue of potential annesatiortof the Moran /Glcnnne UGAJJP'A and the legal authority and right to pursue or oppose such annexation from this Now, therefore be it Resolved, towards addressing how zoning. subdivision and other land use approvals for joint planning will be coordinated. to ensure that transportation capacity for development meets concurrency requirements and that consistent development standards are used. the Panics agree to cooperative joint planning in the Mortnit ilenn'x l GA/JPA and ;Opining propr:rtl Iocateti) µ tthin the Cite of Spokane. pur,u.rnt to the followingtermm and conditions: I. Leal basis: This ,∎gr emcnt is entered into pursuant to RCW 36.70A.010; 020(3); 210 (3) (a), (b), (d). and (f); RCW 3434; Countywide Planning Policies For Spokane County (Planning Policies) Topic 2, Overview cif Growth Management Act (GMA) Requirements; Topic 2, Policic (1) and (2); Topic 5 Transportation. Overview of Growth Management (GMA) Requirements; and Glossary Countywide Planning Policy Terms. Joint Planning Arras;, Deleted: , d-% g r I J.ntu rNmntnf I Was D«ed: 1:16161 66 s Dade Osbert Int aocmm of d►e mem oalftsdt Oaskimind ants Palmed: s tttd*_ i dot Silk lr.Ca■D lot dm co The ata►tcarrr or 2. Intent: It is the intent of the Parties . to provide ,for coordinated planning for transportation and devclopmtntt standards in jht.■c area.. consisting of the i l l Mnr nJ(jtenrc IJG:VJI'A (tjte - VGA/WA - land r_') that ar a IiK.it4:d in the City if Spokane a4Jja eat lo the l-IGNJPA the "City Prl,prrty - 1 . rcfcrr4'd to as the Joint Planning Arr.LS as defined in this agreement, 19 to ensure that transportation improvements necessary to mitigate transportation impacts resulting from development the Joint Planning Arras are identified and constructed concurrent w ith the development and/or that adequate funding is secured to finance construction of such transportation improvements concurrent with development. as required by RCW. ?b.7OA,O7OthJtt . and k3) to ensure that development standards applied within thcjo,nt Planning Are:t relating to allowable land uses, densities. streets, sidewalks, curbing. drainage and utilities are compatible,. st Thc Panics desire to jointly develop and implement development regulations, procedures and standards related to the review and approval of projects within the Joint Planning Area. Thc Parties also desire to jointly establish and implement consistent development regulations and procedures governing the provision of all public facilities within said .dint Planing ;rs, The Parties agree to commit sufficient staff to draft and finalize these specific agreements in a timely manner., 3. Applicability: The Agreement shall apply to development proposals within the Deleted: t Deleted: rcr ceafemed Delete& Ow Delets� t <;a ; Deleted: a Deleted: 1 pialrlk 3670A 1101/1016W { j Deleted: MA I Deleted: delft& amt Desirene with to Cm • em re pale rd der *row rdr I Deleted: L :GA. as defined m dc• Ipronuem Deleted: LlIk ONetedt , Atawan of do t.i I 0 Growth Minoremeea Semi= ()ram could he maned hot Deleted: MrurariJGletirt U{ VJP ,. a3 WTI ifled m lErtrhibit "A" hereto at "UGAAIPA as u a4 st z! within the C S okane iricntitic�d ire Exh-h -t "A" "Ciry Prt.rperts k'inih referred Iu within this zscefficto bS the "Joint Piannin Arens 4. Projects affected; Thi p mt'nt applrc^s 10 new development prposals in th dint planniriL thai are subject to the Notice of Application !equitymtwt% or RON 36.7119 as adopted by the Count , '" 1` { +r v in the 1,t(MPA or Cioi foipri!grcnv the City pl-operp, .. including proposals subject to the ate Envu'unmental Polity Act lithe "l 'ti°tki n—vir !p S1Et l "i. Notice of Application. Notice of Hearing and Notice of Decision required by RCW 36.70B and uny cnvirt nnenud checklist. EIS or other enviranrrientnl document required pursuant to RCW 43.21C for Development Proposals in the Joint Falannien r.ru3s shall be provided to c; h ruir k F+% the other_ party in a timely mnnner and in accordance with applicable regulations. The Parties further agree they shall provide each other ut least 7 days notice i f Arty technical review ttJ IJP.}'t I tit'ill! n" IGl :� f velt�t'mcsit Prnt*�Eamf are alio wed and encouraged to attend any building pcnoit pieconstra tion cooly -unx re •rcu mmtities. Such notice shall be in the form of stinclard notice~ for sash technical reyiew rrlertinL given by the either i A. Tlic Prttties shall, conler no Do.clnpnient Ptopostds outlinixl above prior to t el Kul guava 43t COI. =wale. 4a1�4�k i Deletaalt I fie; UGA Making: Jwisidierion belkilniponir prrtoormitAssi angi1rt aid wee kthibil net =eai®p. nrleluck enailertimetheismimp Deists& kurlactice t7e4aErdc L 11c I t tamidli "they) p issuance of any final DNS. MDNS tar staff report to the Hearing Examiner in an attempt to teach a consensus position/recommendation. For SEPA documents, the jurisdiction having lead agency status shall include the consensus/collcctive recommendation and any mitigating conditions, or their individual recommendations and any mitigating conditions if unable to reach consensus. as applicabk: for projects pmcceding to public hearing. both Parties shall include the consensus recommendation in their respective staff report/reconunended conditions of appmval to the Hearing Examiner or other appropriate hearing hody, or, if unable to agree. their respective recommendations Trun porultion: The Panics recognize that development activity within their respective jurisdictions - may cause transportation impacts and may impact transportation levels of service in ncichhorine jurisdictions. To ensure proper identification and mitigation of development related transportation impacts. the Parties agree that. a Unless otherwise inconsistent with law, either of the Panics may , requt v preparation of a Traffic Impact Stud. (TV) quantifying the impact of any, De%elo2mcnt J'n'posaI within the „Joint Planning :Areas. The temunt)logy TIS i4 frfincci in Section 1.10 of the Spokane County Road and Drain: gc Standards. a cony of which is attirch -d hereto as Ethibit "8.” T1tr Partin; un emtand that the tcrminoloe' T IS may ranee from an in (lentil .rnal\ cis of the site t Dc elopin nt, Proposal] generated auras- of -scrs ice to a cursory review of safety itsucs In the r itttleht :d: a I L SMtsd: uneldrnnni t Deleted: rtvuur Ddb: Analymr. Deleted: A Deleted: are etvdapaeat Ddb Meru Deleted: UGA event the Party within whose iurisdictton the Reshipment Prupu .►1 is proposed determines to _prepare a 111, the other parts , shall have an opportunity to r:trtit;ipatc III. the, sco1 ne used to Jetcmine the depth of analvsi . h. In approving and /or making recommendations regarding Development j'roposals, each of the Parties shall require (or recommend, as the ca.sc may be) construction of the transportation impmvements necessary to mitigate transportation impacts identified in the T(,S concurrent with development as required by RCW 36.7OA.070(6);N and/or the dedication of such land or payment of money in lieu thereof that is necessary to mitigate such impacts to the jurisdiction whose transportation system is thereby impacted. Any such fees shall be held and encumbered as provided in RCW 82.02.020. c. For jevelopment j'rtf+osais in the, Joint Plannine Areas where construction of improvements necessary to mitigate identified direct trantiponation impacts does not take place concurrent with the Develrtpmcnt Proposal, the Parties shall jointly establish a uniform method for quantifying appropriate financial contributions amvnt. the City County and spa isor'deseltct+cr of the Desch tncnt P for improvements to be made within 6 years of the appmval 'f the Deseluprn nt J n'pos tl for identified direct transportation impacts. The Parties recognize that to implement this ,Agreement some modification of existing regulations may be required and agree to make such moxlifications in a timely manner ctwtsistent w tth ans. annlieai+lc law after establishment of a uniform and mutually agreed upon ( roluiledr In such rack came. boa Pekes ) Nabbed: bale le Deleted: demel p ame at der Deleted: r Oeieded:.d %axis saucy Ded d#d: rhr F'artln may nunuurtr ram Is wtttt% WI far, TIA Peepers ro rep powder devekpdi.dpe►tp.ed. Oeisteds d Deleted: p Odeted: A Deleted: till Deleted: d i MINN* twtrjnu L INdet ak VGA ( tt+.t e.* prelim oeib.d: pnr}c.t —t. method for quantifying appropriate financial contributions. d. The Parties further agree to jointly idcntifv „Development Eproposals that fail to comply with the concurrency standards of either party. c. The Panics further agree to 4onsider incorporating the findinp, and recommendations on concurrency being pn:pared by thc Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) into this, Agreement. to the extent agreed to by the Parties, by formal amendment at such time that , SRTC's concurrcnc v regulations are finalized. Development Standards: The Parties recognize that development in the , inmt u tthout common development regulations could frustrate the purpose and intent of thisAgrremcnt„ a. The Panics agree to assign the necessary staff to review applicable development regulations, including but not limited to zoning designations, PUD standards, landscaping, signage, subdivision. road and street standards, bicycle paths. jogging lanes, trail systems application review procedures and stormwater drainage requirements. Differences shall be identified and a consensus or compatible standard recommended. after which mutual recommendations will be proc sled as an amendment to each Panics' development regulations in a lawful manner towards the end of developing uniformity in said development standards. Such review should include representatives from the private sector who may be impacted by any such amendments. The process to identify individual jurisdiction differences shall commence upon signing of this lgreement, with a Deleted: rectnamerod tatlele& danal ur and a 1 Deleted: e Deleted: lomt Piano; Delted:urrxgr ,. 7 , t:tet , .i Distrids it I Deleted: I Delisted: mar thc int.auah goal of completing the identification of differences within six (61 months of signing. Recommendation for consensus standards shall follow.. h. The Panics agree to confer on the necessity for and/or the location of any connector streets and/or the classification of any streets within or adjacent to a, Development Pnts. . 1 If agreement is not reached, both Parties shall present,. their respective positions to the Hearing EXAM inerjippr priatc hearing body, or administrative official.. c. The Panies agree to consult on Comprehensive Plan/Zoning categories. allowable land uses and densities in the l.nnt Plannine Arras. Such consultation shall include consultation on the classification of stnuts and roadways on the ctltnnion borders. 7. Other Regulations: Nothing in this Agreement shall supersede or negate any existing land use or development regulation of the Parties. 8. Additional Agreements: The Parties contemplate future joint planning agreements that may relate to ether UGA/JPA's or Joint Plammn Area ,S, . Nothing in this ,�grcement is intended to prohibit the development of future agreements relating to either the impacts identified above or other impacts that may now or in the future exist_ 1 9. Rights Reserved: Nothing in this, \greement is intended to waive or limit the rights of the Parties to require mitigation for any impact as allowed by federal. state or local Deistic& (The c1111 lr" ath Merumenrnr Sermon+ Gram could he nrnflni d hair 1 I Datrart p opored • dnrnopmeat r DMYr# or adsoesi m ihe bathe Wawa the Pm* Debtaik UG; Deists* ,toll Dded& prone Delete& or caber DdltI I the UGA w other pcmaoa oe $potta•e Comity aodhs Ddlait me C ton own or Ddabd a Taws or ordinances including but not limited to environmental impacts governed by chapter 4311C RCW or rniti; rtitm fee% eo%ernc.i h. RCW 82.02.060 10. Change in Standards or Ordinances: Any change in the Parties respective 01 development regulations, lit} comrrehcnsivc Hans. ttr (di) offi tai contn'l•, reeatdless of whether he affect the Joint Planning An.aa shall be forwarded to the other party within '1 days of passag. I I !Mediation of Disputes: Any disputes arising fmm this.)grrement._may be set for mediation by either party within 30 days of notification of a dispute. Prior to mediation, the Parties. represented by their elected officials, shall first meet informally in an attempt to reach resolution. If a mediator cannot he agreed upon by the Parties, each party shall select one mediator who in turn shall select a third mediator to conduct the mediation. The decision of the mediation panel shall not be binding on either pant. Pro Wed. however, the PartiLS attire to consider in good faith the det isiun of the mediation rt�utr I i Indemnification and Liability: a Spokane County shall protect. save harmless, indemnify and defend. at its own expense, (City, its elected and appt►inte d officials. officers, employees and agents. from any loss or claim for damages of any nature whatsoever arising out of Spokane County's performance of this agreement. including claims by the Spokane County employees or third parties, except for those damages Delata.b n .oy D ...itin tw unbosom tek ,J wp n to ttn a pprr. twm, cr mnLflod pur,t.,.w It WW. ugrc urm. D.rm.1 1 WNW* nn Or Pairs cane wee to I die imp.ra .tdt wtnaaoo nr. standard. ebb*a )0 days the twee cuss be ,a is oedlabm by other Pam D dtiaft a Diehl* . Wilk. Vic bamc to toot •>a mew .._I_ tWar spa* otdluaoaa as is Mg lank lapstigatsli 10 .hone yalttudt Promo caused solely by the negligence or willful misconduct of (CitylTown). its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, or agents_ b. (Cite shall protect. save harmless. indemnify and defend. at its own expense, Spokane County its elected and appointed officials. officers. employees and agents. from any loss or claim for damages of any nature whatsoever arising out of (City's/Town's) performance of this agreement, including claims by the (City/Town) employee's or third parties. except for those damages caused solely by the negligence or willful misconduct of Spokane County. its elected and appointed officials. officers. employees, or agents. In the event of liability for damages of any nature whatsoever arising out of the performance of this Agreement by Spokane County and (City, including claims by Spokane County's or (City'% own officers, officials. employees, agents. volunteers, or third parties, caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of Spokane County and (City, each Panics liability hereunder shall only be to the extent of that party's negligence. d. No liability shall he attached to Spokane County or (Cite by reason of entering into this agreement except as expressly provided herein. 13. Severobility: If any pnwision of this _gnrrnent or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the provisions and/or the application of the provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected. In such case the £artie5 agree to meet and amend this . recrnent as may he mutually deemed necessary. Deleted: Man) Deleted: fit u.a I Delete* rtu.a's Deleted: /rum.) Deleted: rro.ni Deleted: ■ Deleted: Deleted+ :, 14. Entire Agreement: This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to identified property. This Agreement may be amended in writing by mutual agreement of the Parries. 15. Designated Representative. The Parties agree ,that the Mayor or htsthcr designee (position) shall he the designated representative of the related to this lgreement and the Chairman of the Board of Counts. Cornrnissioncrs rr luv'hcr detsn2ec (position) shall he the designated representative of the County. 16. Effective Date and Duration. ThisAg eement shall become effective following the approval of the ;\ emcnt by the official governing hashes of each of the Parties hereto and the signing of the ; Agreement by the duly authorized representative of each of the Panics hereto. and shall remain in effect unless terminated_ 17 Termination. Either Pan, may terminate its obligation under this 3peement upon one year advance written notice to the other Party. Following a termination, the County and City are responsible for fulfilling any outstanding obligations under thi eement, or amendment thereto. incurred prior to the effective date of the termination. l Headings The paragraph headings unpeanng in this Agreement have been • Deleted: �rMehk Deleted: n Wald: Iron Ciivfor coordination of this ,Agreement and for receipt of any communications osia edr . Deleted: Deleted: a Deleted: I Deleted: Deleted: 1' Permitted: Bullets end teentertnp Fontenot Fent: told J Deleted a DMebd c Detected a inserted solely for the purpose of convenience and reads reference. in no way duo they purpose to. and shall not he deemed to define. limit or extend the scope for intent of the par,► &raphs lr which they pertain 19. Counterparts. This Aercerncnt tray he executed in any number of counterparts, yaCh of which. when exeeulcd and delivered, shall he an original. hut such countectwis shall tuecther constitute but one and thc sarnc ;1(1. Pmpcnv and Equipment. The ownership of all oropcnv and equipment utilized by an Pam to meet is Dili anion, under the terms of this Aut anent shall remain with such Pans. 21 RCW 1 9. 1 4 Rcquin cheeses 22- Ver,ue Stipulation, - nil, Agreement has hcen and shall he construed as having ken rnadc and delivered within the %tate of Witsningion and it is rputuallk undcr`t►xxd an �t reCd by each P arty t hat this A.rret the laws of the State of Washintit n hnth as to intcmntati►m and nerformancc, Ant action at law. shit in equipy or judicial proceedings s for the enforcement of this A1;retnunt. or ar '! rte wiom ht rviu hall l e instirulcxl tint gown_ of coal within Spokane County, Washington, 23. Notice All notices or order communications given hereunder ..hall he deemed given on i i 1 the :fay such notices or tither communications n received when .cnt ry personal delivery: or (tit the third day following the day on which the same have hr en mailed by certified mail dclivcty. receipt requested and pi ace prepaid addressed the Parities at thc addressees sot forth Mow, or at such ether address as the Panics shall from time -to -time designate by notice in writing to the other P art1C COUNTY: CITY Sec pratisions abase. F. Financing, Chairman of the Board of County Contini.sioncrs 1 116 Wet BrulJv,av At owe Snokanc. Wakhingitsn 99260 City of Spokane %lasor or his/hcr authrm /c*J rePres 4 City HaII KOS West Spokane Falls Boulevard Srokarte. Washington 9)'01 r4. RCW 39 3 4 Kc 'quir« d Clauses A. Furrow Scr Paragraph 2 above B. Uunnlinn Sec ParA arh I6 ;shove C t/rganiiation of separate entity and its powers U, Responsibilities tit the Parties. Erich Pang thall be responsible for the linansine of its ccmiractuul obligations under its normal budcciary process_. • I Foreueledt Um spacing: single No new or senarltc learn or adminIstratltc entity is mated ti o atiminister the provisions of this Air ;cmcnt E. As;le4ment to he filed • The Ctts shall file this Au4Yntcnt with its City Clerk. The Count. shall pincc this Aj;f<ernent on AN wch site Fomnllett line spacing: single. fbaebeed + level: 1 + Numbenng Sty* 1, 2, 3, - -- + Start it 17 + Alignment: Left • Aligned at 0.2S • Tab alter. 0.5' + Indent at 0.5' Face eledt Indent Left 0.25% Lne spicing: s Fonnalledt Numbered • Level: 2 + Numbering • A, e, C .. + Salt at 1 • Alignment: lift + Aligned et 0.73' • Tab alter: 1" • Indent at 1' Faeautsbed: indent: Lett 0.75" Foteerled: Numbered + level: 2 + flumbafitg Styli A. B. C + start at 1 • Augment: Left • Aligned at 0.75' • Tab altar r + Indent at: 1 ' Pomaded: Indere Lift. 0.75' Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.75', Line spaong: single Forma bad: Unc spacing singir, 14anbaed + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: A,B,C __+ Start at: 5+ Alpanest: Left + Aligned at: 0.75" • Tab afar: 1" • Indent at: t" Formatted: ardent left: 0.75", line Vamp_ angle Formetbdt line speang - . single. Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style. A 8 C ._ + Start at: 5 • Alignment Left + Aligned at: 0.75' • Tab after: 1" • Indent at 1" ( Forsuatlat indent Lelt 0.75'. Une spaong: single Formattetb Line Spacing: single, Permitted • level' 1 + Numbering 0 Terminanun, - Style: A, B, C, - . + start et 5 + Alignment Left • Aligned at 0.75" • Tab after: 1" + Indent at 1' Sec Panlrrtph 17 above, Fornntlmdt Indent Left: 0.75", Line spates engie IN WITNESS NVHEREOF, the Pattie• have causcd this Aerecment i i be cu.-cured on thc dme and vi car tiplxnih: their respcctis c signature blacks. ATTEST Danacla Erickson Clcrk of the Board ATTEST: City Cleric BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY. WASHINGTON MARK RICHARD. Chairman BONNIE MAGER. V icc chair TODD MIEI_KF Commissioner CITY OF SPOKANE B v: Title: Approved as to form: A_csistunt City Attorney • Ponmtted: Noma